niryuu/sni-each-converted huggingface dataset:
CONTEXT: According to the narrative of the program, it seems that Walter White is dead. However, if one looks at how he was wounded it is conceivable that he wouldn't have died from the wound that he received and that he simply became unconscious at the end of the episode. While an M-60 fires a 7.62 (.30 cal) round, its bullets are copper jacket military rounds. These rounds don't expand and often inflict non-fatal wounds if they don't strike major organs or blood vessels. As demonstrated in the episode "Felina", the series denouement, Walter isn't struck directly by a rounds but is hit by a ricochet. This could cause a serious injury and perhaps an incapacitating one; however death seems to be a stretch. Assuming that Walt's injury (on his lower right side) could have struck his liver or his renal artery and thus caused him to bleed out internally. Unfortunately, such a wound would have made it impossible for him to have walked out of the neo-Nazi's hideout and around for what would have been at least ten minutes. Given that the police shown to have arrived within seconds of Walt's collapse, he could have easily been saved if paramedics had been called. The series states that Walter White is dead. The injury that he received could have been easily survivable.  <sep>  Q: Is Walter White dead? A: According to the narrative of the program, it seems that Walter White is dead  Q: BUT it only showed gum on floor they did not bury hum A: The series states that Walter White is dead. The injury that he received could have been easily survivable  Q: in the last episode they did not show walt dead he was just injured will they continue the story? A: The series states that Walter White is dead  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what is the name of the movie on netflix about jessie?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: According to the narrative of the program, it seems that Walter White is dead. However, if one looks at how he was wounded it is conceivable that he wouldn't have died from the wound that he received and that he simply became unconscious at the end of the episode. While an M-60 fires a 7.62 (.30 cal) round, its bullets are copper jacket military rounds. These rounds don't expand and often inflict non-fatal wounds if they don't strike major organs or blood vessels. As demonstrated in the episode "Felina", the series denouement, Walter isn't struck directly by a rounds but is hit by a ricochet. This could cause a serious injury and perhaps an incapacitating one; however death seems to be a stretch. Assuming that Walt's injury (on his lower right side) could have struck his liver or his renal artery and thus caused him to bleed out internally. Unfortunately, such a wound would have made it impossible for him to have walked out of the neo-Nazi's hideout and around for what would have been at least ten minutes. Given that the police shown to have arrived within seconds of Walt's collapse, he could have easily been saved if paramedics had been called. The series states that Walter White is dead. The injury that he received could have been easily survivable.  <sep>  Q: Is Walter White dead? A: According to the narrative of the program, it seems that Walter White is dead  Q: BUT it only showed gum on floor they did not bury hum A: The series states that Walter White is dead. The injury that he received could have been easily survivable  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what about jesse he could he continue the story with out walt?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments). Savin is from after the work has been more refined, similar to Killian himself, who shows a number of additional abilities on top of the regrowth/strength of the earlier instances. Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical. The process itself is clearly not 100% effective or when Killian shoots Maya Hansen, he wouldn't then be offering Tony a "high level position" to perfect it - Tony even notes that he "almost had this 20 years ago, when I was drunk" so expects that he could figure it out fairly easily.  <sep>  Q: How come this Extremis Soldier died so easily?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments). Savin is from after the work has been more refined, similar to Killian himself, who shows a number of additional abilities on top of the regrowth/strength of the earlier instances. Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical. The process itself is clearly not 100% effective or when Killian shoots Maya Hansen, he wouldn't then be offering Tony a "high level position" to perfect it - Tony even notes that he "almost had this 20 years ago, when I was drunk" so expects that he could figure it out fairly easily.  <sep>  Q: How come this Extremis Soldier died so easily? A: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: was Brandts body blown apart?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments). Savin is from after the work has been more refined, similar to Killian himself, who shows a number of additional abilities on top of the regrowth/strength of the earlier instances. Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical. The process itself is clearly not 100% effective or when Killian shoots Maya Hansen, he wouldn't then be offering Tony a "high level position" to perfect it - Tony even notes that he "almost had this 20 years ago, when I was drunk" so expects that he could figure it out fairly easily.  <sep>  Q: How come this Extremis Soldier died so easily? A: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what did stark shoot Brandt with?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments). Savin is from after the work has been more refined, similar to Killian himself, who shows a number of additional abilities on top of the regrowth/strength of the earlier instances. Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical. The process itself is clearly not 100% effective or when Killian shoots Maya Hansen, he wouldn't then be offering Tony a "high level position" to perfect it - Tony even notes that he "almost had this 20 years ago, when I was drunk" so expects that he could figure it out fairly easily.  <sep>  Q: How come this Extremis Soldier died so easily? A: Brandt was from earlier trials of Extremis (she is seen on the videos regrowing an arm during an early set of the experiments  Q: was Brandts body blown apart? A: Note that in the early part of the film, Tony is investigating the mysterious "explosions without a bomb" which are the result of early Extremis treated victims going critical  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What does Stark do for a living?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Supernatural is inspired from several folk lore, legends, myths and a creative team. So most of it is born out of the existing myths out there. Of course, the team goes on to make some stuff of their own. The thing is, Supernatural borrows from myths all over the world. The salt thing and devil's trap are myths that exist. Though I wouldn't worry about the series being credible because they often involve plots that throw you off your screen like the Horsemen, heaven, hell etc etc. Just enjoy the show! :)  <sep>  Q: Is there any credibility to the "details" in Supernatural?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Supernatural is inspired from several folk lore, legends, myths and a creative team. So most of it is born out of the existing myths out there. Of course, the team goes on to make some stuff of their own. The thing is, Supernatural borrows from myths all over the world. The salt thing and devil's trap are myths that exist. Though I wouldn't worry about the series being credible because they often involve plots that throw you off your screen like the Horsemen, heaven, hell etc etc. Just enjoy the show! :)  <sep>  Q: Is there any credibility to the "details" in Supernatural? A: Supernatural is inspired from several folk lore, legends, myths and a creative team  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What folk lore, legends and myths is it inspired by?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well I never wondered about this. There has been quite a chaos (with them falling through the ceiling into these skeletons) immediately before it, under which an approaching T-Rex could really get lost. So I would indeed attribute this to the distraction created by the velociraptors and the overall chaos of this scene (both for the audience and the characters). And maybe a bit of trying to create a very surprising moment by sacrificing a small bit of realism (which never bothered me at all).  <sep>  Q: what other dinosaurs were in the movie
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Well I never wondered about this. There has been quite a chaos (with them falling through the ceiling into these skeletons) immediately before it, under which an approaching T-Rex could really get lost. So I would indeed attribute this to the distraction created by the velociraptors and the overall chaos of this scene (both for the audience and the characters). And maybe a bit of trying to create a very surprising moment by sacrificing a small bit of realism (which never bothered me at all).  <sep>  Q: what other dinosaurs were in the movie A: velociraptors  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: how many jurassic parks were made
Output: No
CONTEXT: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment" it was revealed that Edmure Tully (the uncle of King Robb Stark) disobeyed orders and attacked Gregor Clegane. Edumre won the battle and Gregor fled, but Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister. We never see the battle, but it is discussed when King Robb chastises his uncle after the funeral.  <sep>  Q: How did the Stark family capture the Lannister family's children?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment" it was revealed that Edmure Tully (the uncle of King Robb Stark) disobeyed orders and attacked Gregor Clegane. Edumre won the battle and Gregor fled, but Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister. We never see the battle, but it is discussed when King Robb chastises his uncle after the funeral.  <sep>  Q: How did the Stark family capture the Lannister family's children? A: Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: When did this happen?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment" it was revealed that Edmure Tully (the uncle of King Robb Stark) disobeyed orders and attacked Gregor Clegane. Edumre won the battle and Gregor fled, but Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister. We never see the battle, but it is discussed when King Robb chastises his uncle after the funeral.  <sep>  Q: How did the Stark family capture the Lannister family's children? A: Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister  Q: When did this happen? A: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: HOw many children of the Lannister family were captured?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment" it was revealed that Edmure Tully (the uncle of King Robb Stark) disobeyed orders and attacked Gregor Clegane. Edumre won the battle and Gregor fled, but Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister. We never see the battle, but it is discussed when King Robb chastises his uncle after the funeral.  <sep>  Q: How did the Stark family capture the Lannister family's children? A: Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister  Q: When did this happen? A: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment  Q: HOw many children of the Lannister family were captured? A: Willem and Martyn Lannister  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who captured them?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment" it was revealed that Edmure Tully (the uncle of King Robb Stark) disobeyed orders and attacked Gregor Clegane. Edumre won the battle and Gregor fled, but Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister. We never see the battle, but it is discussed when King Robb chastises his uncle after the funeral.  <sep>  Q: How did the Stark family capture the Lannister family's children? A: Edmure was able to capture some hostages including Willem and Martyn Lannister  Q: When did this happen? A: In the 3rd episode of season 3 "Walk of Punishment  Q: HOw many children of the Lannister family were captured? A: Willem and Martyn Lannister  Q: Who captured them? A: Edumre won the battle  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How long was the battle?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No, I would not classify B-Movie as a genre. The name came from the fact that it used to be the second movie of a double-bill, and was usually low budget and shorter than the other. Nowadays we think of a B-Movie in a broader sense of being a low budget commercial movie, and has some overlap with Exploitation movies, but they can cover multiple genres including Horror as you mention. Science Fiction & Westerns are genres that have produced many B-Movies. The Italians were famous for producing 'Peplum' movies - also known as 'Swords and Sandals' movies. It is true that there was a 'golden age' of B-Movies and that there are certain traits that might make you think 'this is a b-movie', but I do not think they would form a recognized genre in their own right. Yes, director's would often know they were making a B-Movie - explicitly because it had a low budget and was destined to accompany a main feature. This might impart some of the characteristics that people love or hate about B-Movies, but it doesn't make it a genre IMHO.  <sep>  Q: Is B Movie a genre?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: No, I would not classify B-Movie as a genre. The name came from the fact that it used to be the second movie of a double-bill, and was usually low budget and shorter than the other. Nowadays we think of a B-Movie in a broader sense of being a low budget commercial movie, and has some overlap with Exploitation movies, but they can cover multiple genres including Horror as you mention. Science Fiction & Westerns are genres that have produced many B-Movies. The Italians were famous for producing 'Peplum' movies - also known as 'Swords and Sandals' movies. It is true that there was a 'golden age' of B-Movies and that there are certain traits that might make you think 'this is a b-movie', but I do not think they would form a recognized genre in their own right. Yes, director's would often know they were making a B-Movie - explicitly because it had a low budget and was destined to accompany a main feature. This might impart some of the characteristics that people love or hate about B-Movies, but it doesn't make it a genre IMHO.  <sep>  Q: Is B Movie a genre? A: I would not classify B-Movie as a genre  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What are the requirements for something to be a genre?
Output: No
CONTEXT: No, I would not classify B-Movie as a genre. The name came from the fact that it used to be the second movie of a double-bill, and was usually low budget and shorter than the other. Nowadays we think of a B-Movie in a broader sense of being a low budget commercial movie, and has some overlap with Exploitation movies, but they can cover multiple genres including Horror as you mention. Science Fiction & Westerns are genres that have produced many B-Movies. The Italians were famous for producing 'Peplum' movies - also known as 'Swords and Sandals' movies. It is true that there was a 'golden age' of B-Movies and that there are certain traits that might make you think 'this is a b-movie', but I do not think they would form a recognized genre in their own right. Yes, director's would often know they were making a B-Movie - explicitly because it had a low budget and was destined to accompany a main feature. This might impart some of the characteristics that people love or hate about B-Movies, but it doesn't make it a genre IMHO.  <sep>  Q: Is B Movie a genre? A: I would not classify B-Movie as a genre  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: DOes Netflix list B as a genre?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father, who was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K. Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him, he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures. Since the "past" elements of the movie took place in 1969, this means he's lived with this memory for some 40 years.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Agent K to make him so grumpy and emotionless?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father, who was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K. Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him, he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures. Since the "past" elements of the movie took place in 1969, this means he's lived with this memory for some 40 years.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Agent K to make him so grumpy and emotionless? A: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: So how did Agent J's father die?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father, who was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K. Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him, he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures. Since the "past" elements of the movie took place in 1969, this means he's lived with this memory for some 40 years.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Agent K to make him so grumpy and emotionless? A: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father  Q: So how did Agent J's father die? A: was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Oh, so do you think that he was stoical and cranky because he felt guilty about that?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father, who was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K. Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him, he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures. Since the "past" elements of the movie took place in 1969, this means he's lived with this memory for some 40 years.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Agent K to make him so grumpy and emotionless? A: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father  Q: So how did Agent J's father die? A: was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K  Q: Oh, so do you think that he was stoical and cranky because he felt guilty about that? A: he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Wow, so does Agent J know this is how his father dies?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father, who was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K. Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him, he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures. Since the "past" elements of the movie took place in 1969, this means he's lived with this memory for some 40 years.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Agent K to make him so grumpy and emotionless? A: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father  Q: So how did Agent J's father die? A: was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K  Q: Oh, so do you think that he was stoical and cranky because he felt guilty about that? A: he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures  Q: Wow, so does Agent J know this is how his father dies? A: Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Does Agent J resent Agent K for this?
Output: No
CONTEXT: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father, who was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K. Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him, he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures. Since the "past" elements of the movie took place in 1969, this means he's lived with this memory for some 40 years.  <sep>  Q: What happened to Agent K to make him so grumpy and emotionless? A: Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) witnessed the death of Agent J's (Will Smith) father  Q: So how did Agent J's father die? A: was killed by an alien in an act that could have been prevented by Agent K  Q: Oh, so do you think that he was stoical and cranky because he felt guilty about that? A: he has essentially lived with the fact that the father of one of his only friends in the universe died because of his own failures  Q: Wow, so does Agent J know this is how his father dies? A: Considering the time travel elements of the third movie, and the fact that Agent K from the past was aware of his future after Agent J told him  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Ok, How does Agent K deal with his guilt - does he try to fix it or make it up to J?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was; I'm pretty sure he was not human. I don't see anyone listed in the credits (so the Lantern was probably entirely CGI), so that's no help either. I suspect it was just a nameless Lantern from thousands of years ago. The other powered characters in that scene were the various "old gods". At least three of them are credited. Besides Zeus, we also see Ares (same actor as Wonder Woman) and Artemis (who is probably the bow wielder you're thinking of, if I had to guess.) In the DC universe, there are a dozen or so Olympian gods, all of which would likely have been present. I will point out that Steppenwolf uses the phrase "old gods" to describe Wonder Woman's heritage, but in a way that's generally not the same as it's used in the DC comics universe. Zeus, Ares, etc. in the comics are the gods of Olympus, and would be classified as "New Gods" in the same vein as Darkseid. Steppenwolf appears to use the term just to describe the gods of the old world, not referring to the beings actually called the "Old Gods".  <sep>  Q: What were all the fighters in previous Age of Heroes?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was; I'm pretty sure he was not human. I don't see anyone listed in the credits (so the Lantern was probably entirely CGI), so that's no help either. I suspect it was just a nameless Lantern from thousands of years ago. The other powered characters in that scene were the various "old gods". At least three of them are credited. Besides Zeus, we also see Ares (same actor as Wonder Woman) and Artemis (who is probably the bow wielder you're thinking of, if I had to guess.) In the DC universe, there are a dozen or so Olympian gods, all of which would likely have been present. I will point out that Steppenwolf uses the phrase "old gods" to describe Wonder Woman's heritage, but in a way that's generally not the same as it's used in the DC comics universe. Zeus, Ares, etc. in the comics are the gods of Olympus, and would be classified as "New Gods" in the same vein as Darkseid. Steppenwolf appears to use the term just to describe the gods of the old world, not referring to the beings actually called the "Old Gods".  <sep>  Q: What were all the fighters in previous Age of Heroes? A: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: what was the plan of steppenwolf?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was; I'm pretty sure he was not human. I don't see anyone listed in the credits (so the Lantern was probably entirely CGI), so that's no help either. I suspect it was just a nameless Lantern from thousands of years ago. The other powered characters in that scene were the various "old gods". At least three of them are credited. Besides Zeus, we also see Ares (same actor as Wonder Woman) and Artemis (who is probably the bow wielder you're thinking of, if I had to guess.) In the DC universe, there are a dozen or so Olympian gods, all of which would likely have been present. I will point out that Steppenwolf uses the phrase "old gods" to describe Wonder Woman's heritage, but in a way that's generally not the same as it's used in the DC comics universe. Zeus, Ares, etc. in the comics are the gods of Olympus, and would be classified as "New Gods" in the same vein as Darkseid. Steppenwolf appears to use the term just to describe the gods of the old world, not referring to the beings actually called the "Old Gods".  <sep>  Q: What were all the fighters in previous Age of Heroes? A: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: did the green lantern die?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was; I'm pretty sure he was not human. I don't see anyone listed in the credits (so the Lantern was probably entirely CGI), so that's no help either. I suspect it was just a nameless Lantern from thousands of years ago. The other powered characters in that scene were the various "old gods". At least three of them are credited. Besides Zeus, we also see Ares (same actor as Wonder Woman) and Artemis (who is probably the bow wielder you're thinking of, if I had to guess.) In the DC universe, there are a dozen or so Olympian gods, all of which would likely have been present. I will point out that Steppenwolf uses the phrase "old gods" to describe Wonder Woman's heritage, but in a way that's generally not the same as it's used in the DC comics universe. Zeus, Ares, etc. in the comics are the gods of Olympus, and would be classified as "New Gods" in the same vein as Darkseid. Steppenwolf appears to use the term just to describe the gods of the old world, not referring to the beings actually called the "Old Gods".  <sep>  Q: What were all the fighters in previous Age of Heroes? A: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Who had the fire arrows?
Output: No
CONTEXT: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was; I'm pretty sure he was not human. I don't see anyone listed in the credits (so the Lantern was probably entirely CGI), so that's no help either. I suspect it was just a nameless Lantern from thousands of years ago. The other powered characters in that scene were the various "old gods". At least three of them are credited. Besides Zeus, we also see Ares (same actor as Wonder Woman) and Artemis (who is probably the bow wielder you're thinking of, if I had to guess.) In the DC universe, there are a dozen or so Olympian gods, all of which would likely have been present. I will point out that Steppenwolf uses the phrase "old gods" to describe Wonder Woman's heritage, but in a way that's generally not the same as it's used in the DC comics universe. Zeus, Ares, etc. in the comics are the gods of Olympus, and would be classified as "New Gods" in the same vein as Darkseid. Steppenwolf appears to use the term just to describe the gods of the old world, not referring to the beings actually called the "Old Gods".  <sep>  Q: What were all the fighters in previous Age of Heroes? A: I don't know that we saw enough of the Green Lantern to know who he was  Q: what was the plan of steppenwolf? A: I will point out that Steppenwolf uses the phrase "old gods" to describe Wonder Woman's heritage, but in a way that's generally not the same as it's used in the DC comics universe  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Were the Atlanteans also involved ?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The problem wasn't so much that she resurrected him, as how she did it. She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand. Imagine it as someone who has a prosthetic limb and needs to learn to control it. She tried to place something (his life) gently back into time and instead punched out violently. Time around him solidified as if it were that paste that goes solid with kinetic energy. She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen, wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it. Of course, over time that energy would wear down and eventually dissipate, in this case by his own choice which allowed him to finally die. Exposure to time travellers would likely drain some of the energy too, as would the vortex he guarded in Torchwood. It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years. Having the effect turn off (like it did in Miracle Day, for example) every so often would allow him to be mutated from radiation enough that over centuries he could become as he was when he died. That's my personal view on things.  <sep>  Q: How did Rose make Jack immortal?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The problem wasn't so much that she resurrected him, as how she did it. She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand. Imagine it as someone who has a prosthetic limb and needs to learn to control it. She tried to place something (his life) gently back into time and instead punched out violently. Time around him solidified as if it were that paste that goes solid with kinetic energy. She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen, wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it. Of course, over time that energy would wear down and eventually dissipate, in this case by his own choice which allowed him to finally die. Exposure to time travellers would likely drain some of the energy too, as would the vortex he guarded in Torchwood. It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years. Having the effect turn off (like it did in Miracle Day, for example) every so often would allow him to be mutated from radiation enough that over centuries he could become as he was when he died. That's my personal view on things.  <sep>  Q: How did Rose make Jack immortal? A: She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did she revive Jack?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The problem wasn't so much that she resurrected him, as how she did it. She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand. Imagine it as someone who has a prosthetic limb and needs to learn to control it. She tried to place something (his life) gently back into time and instead punched out violently. Time around him solidified as if it were that paste that goes solid with kinetic energy. She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen, wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it. Of course, over time that energy would wear down and eventually dissipate, in this case by his own choice which allowed him to finally die. Exposure to time travellers would likely drain some of the energy too, as would the vortex he guarded in Torchwood. It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years. Having the effect turn off (like it did in Miracle Day, for example) every so often would allow him to be mutated from radiation enough that over centuries he could become as he was when he died. That's my personal view on things.  <sep>  Q: How did Rose make Jack immortal? A: She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen  Q: How did she revive Jack? A: She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How did Rose use the Time Vortex power?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The problem wasn't so much that she resurrected him, as how she did it. She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand. Imagine it as someone who has a prosthetic limb and needs to learn to control it. She tried to place something (his life) gently back into time and instead punched out violently. Time around him solidified as if it were that paste that goes solid with kinetic energy. She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen, wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it. Of course, over time that energy would wear down and eventually dissipate, in this case by his own choice which allowed him to finally die. Exposure to time travellers would likely drain some of the energy too, as would the vortex he guarded in Torchwood. It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years. Having the effect turn off (like it did in Miracle Day, for example) every so often would allow him to be mutated from radiation enough that over centuries he could become as he was when he died. That's my personal view on things.  <sep>  Q: How did Rose make Jack immortal? A: She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen  Q: How did she revive Jack? A: She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand  Q: How did Rose use the Time Vortex power? A: wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: How often does he die and need this done?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: The problem wasn't so much that she resurrected him, as how she did it. She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand. Imagine it as someone who has a prosthetic limb and needs to learn to control it. She tried to place something (his life) gently back into time and instead punched out violently. Time around him solidified as if it were that paste that goes solid with kinetic energy. She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen, wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it. Of course, over time that energy would wear down and eventually dissipate, in this case by his own choice which allowed him to finally die. Exposure to time travellers would likely drain some of the energy too, as would the vortex he guarded in Torchwood. It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years. Having the effect turn off (like it did in Miracle Day, for example) every so often would allow him to be mutated from radiation enough that over centuries he could become as he was when he died. That's my personal view on things.  <sep>  Q: How did Rose make Jack immortal? A: She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen  Q: How did she revive Jack? A: She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand  Q: How did Rose use the Time Vortex power? A: wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it  Q: How often does he die and need this done? A: It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Why didn't it just give him another life instead of making him permanently immortal?
Output: No
CONTEXT: The problem wasn't so much that she resurrected him, as how she did it. She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand. Imagine it as someone who has a prosthetic limb and needs to learn to control it. She tried to place something (his life) gently back into time and instead punched out violently. Time around him solidified as if it were that paste that goes solid with kinetic energy. She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen, wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it. Of course, over time that energy would wear down and eventually dissipate, in this case by his own choice which allowed him to finally die. Exposure to time travellers would likely drain some of the energy too, as would the vortex he guarded in Torchwood. It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years. Having the effect turn off (like it did in Miracle Day, for example) every so often would allow him to be mutated from radiation enough that over centuries he could become as he was when he died. That's my personal view on things.  <sep>  Q: How did Rose make Jack immortal? A: She made it so that his death was something that just couldn't happen  Q: How did she revive Jack? A: She controlled time itself and wrapped it around him, giving him life with a power that she didn't understand  Q: How did Rose use the Time Vortex power? A: wrapping him in time energy that jumpstarts his system whenever he dies, almost like an antivirus seeking out a problem with a program and fixing it  Q: How often does he die and need this done? A: It never got explained but I like to think that the whole Face of Boe thing came about due to cellular mutations introduced in his system over the course of millions of reconstitutions over the years  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: What happened to the Daleks?
Output: No
CONTEXT: This is explained a little more in the Novel, and is easier to understand with the hindsight of knowing Plutarch Heavensbee was subversively finding ways to assist the tributes who were complicit in the revolution... It doesn't explicitly state 'Plutarch did this because of this and this...' because that would be terrible clunky writing, and Collins is a much better writer than most people will give her credit for... it just takes a little logic and deduction. The 'Lightning Tree' is in the section of the Arena which endures a lightning storm within its hour. The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location, which obviously is of benefit to Beetee. Furthermore, it is a clear and concise way for the tributes to keep track of what time it is, even if they aren't anywhere near the section that is enduring it's 'hour'. It's the equivalent of Big Ben striking 12. It's never pro-filmically shown that Beetee had discussed a plan with Heavensbee beforehand, but it's interesting that Beetee is insistent on carrying around that spool of electrical wire throughout most of the film. It's quite an encumbrance to keep hold of, 'just in-case', so it could be inferred that Beetee had the plan all along.  <sep>  Q: Was there a purpose for the lightning tree in Catching Fire?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is explained a little more in the Novel, and is easier to understand with the hindsight of knowing Plutarch Heavensbee was subversively finding ways to assist the tributes who were complicit in the revolution... It doesn't explicitly state 'Plutarch did this because of this and this...' because that would be terrible clunky writing, and Collins is a much better writer than most people will give her credit for... it just takes a little logic and deduction. The 'Lightning Tree' is in the section of the Arena which endures a lightning storm within its hour. The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location, which obviously is of benefit to Beetee. Furthermore, it is a clear and concise way for the tributes to keep track of what time it is, even if they aren't anywhere near the section that is enduring it's 'hour'. It's the equivalent of Big Ben striking 12. It's never pro-filmically shown that Beetee had discussed a plan with Heavensbee beforehand, but it's interesting that Beetee is insistent on carrying around that spool of electrical wire throughout most of the film. It's quite an encumbrance to keep hold of, 'just in-case', so it could be inferred that Beetee had the plan all along.  <sep>  Q: Was there a purpose for the lightning tree in Catching Fire? A: The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Is the point of the tree just to scare them?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is explained a little more in the Novel, and is easier to understand with the hindsight of knowing Plutarch Heavensbee was subversively finding ways to assist the tributes who were complicit in the revolution... It doesn't explicitly state 'Plutarch did this because of this and this...' because that would be terrible clunky writing, and Collins is a much better writer than most people will give her credit for... it just takes a little logic and deduction. The 'Lightning Tree' is in the section of the Arena which endures a lightning storm within its hour. The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location, which obviously is of benefit to Beetee. Furthermore, it is a clear and concise way for the tributes to keep track of what time it is, even if they aren't anywhere near the section that is enduring it's 'hour'. It's the equivalent of Big Ben striking 12. It's never pro-filmically shown that Beetee had discussed a plan with Heavensbee beforehand, but it's interesting that Beetee is insistent on carrying around that spool of electrical wire throughout most of the film. It's quite an encumbrance to keep hold of, 'just in-case', so it could be inferred that Beetee had the plan all along.  <sep>  Q: Was there a purpose for the lightning tree in Catching Fire? A: The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location  Q: Is the point of the tree just to scare them? A: It doesn't explicitly state  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Do you think it has any real significance for the game itself?
Output: Yes
CONTEXT: This is explained a little more in the Novel, and is easier to understand with the hindsight of knowing Plutarch Heavensbee was subversively finding ways to assist the tributes who were complicit in the revolution... It doesn't explicitly state 'Plutarch did this because of this and this...' because that would be terrible clunky writing, and Collins is a much better writer than most people will give her credit for... it just takes a little logic and deduction. The 'Lightning Tree' is in the section of the Arena which endures a lightning storm within its hour. The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location, which obviously is of benefit to Beetee. Furthermore, it is a clear and concise way for the tributes to keep track of what time it is, even if they aren't anywhere near the section that is enduring it's 'hour'. It's the equivalent of Big Ben striking 12. It's never pro-filmically shown that Beetee had discussed a plan with Heavensbee beforehand, but it's interesting that Beetee is insistent on carrying around that spool of electrical wire throughout most of the film. It's quite an encumbrance to keep hold of, 'just in-case', so it could be inferred that Beetee had the plan all along.  <sep>  Q: Was there a purpose for the lightning tree in Catching Fire? A: The lightning tree introduces (naturally, without raising the suspicions of anyone else) the element of controlled, predictable burst of electricity in a pre-designated location  <sep> FOLLOWUP_Q: Can the lightning tree kill someone if they aren't on it?
Output: No